Posted on 12/07/2007 8:10:37 AM PST by ZGuy
The Reuters headline said: "Mitt Romney Vows Mormon Church Will Not Run White House." Unfortunately, this time Reuters got its story right. In his long-awaited speech designed to win over conservative evangelicals, Romney actually did say something to this effect, making many people wonder why he needed to make such a vow in the first place. It's a bit like hearing Giuliani vow that the mafia will not be running his White House—it is always dangerous to say what should go without saying, because it makes people wonder why you felt the need to say it. Is the Mormon church itching to run the White House, and does Romney need to stand firm against them?
It is true that John Kennedy made a similar vow in his famous 1960 speech on religion, and Romney was clearly modeling his speech on Kennedy's. But the two situations are not the same. When John Kennedy vowed that the Vatican would not control his administration, he was trying to assuage the historical fear of the Roman Catholic Church that had been instilled into generations of Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Kennedy shrewdly didn't say that the Vatican wouldn't try to interfere—something that his Protestant target audience would never have believed in a millions years anyway; instead, Kennedy said in effect, "I won't let the Vatican interfere." And many Protestants believed him—in large part, because no one really thought Kennedy took his religion seriously enough to affect his behavior one way or the other.
The Mormon church is not Romney's problem; it is Romney's own personal religiosity. On the one hand, Romney is too religious for those who don't like religion in public life—a fact that alienates him from those who could care less about a candidate's religion, so long as the candidate doesn't much care about it himself. On the other hand, Romney offends precisely those Christian evangelicals who agree with him most on the importance of religion in our civic life, many of whom would be his natural supporters if only he was a "real" Christian like them, and not a Mormon instead.
To say that someone is not a real Christian sounds rather insulting, like saying that he is not a good person. But when conservative Christians make this point about Romney, they are talking theology, not morality. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Mormon creed will understand at once why Romney felt little desire to debate its theological niceties with his target audience of Christian evangelicals, many of whom are inclined to see Mormonism not as a bona fide religion, but as a cult. In my state of Georgia, for example, there are Southern Baptist congregations that raise thousands of dollars to send missionaries to convert the Mormons to Christianity.
Yet if Romney was playing it safe by avoiding theology, he was treading on dangerous ground when he appealed to the American tradition of religious tolerance to make his case. Instead of trying to persuade the evangelicals that he was basically on their side, he did the worst thing he could do: he put them on the defensive. In his speech Romney came perilously close to suggesting: If you don't support me, you are violating the cherished principle of religious tolerance. But such a claim is simply untenable and, worse, highly offensive.
The Christian evangelicals who are troubled by Romney's candidacy do not pose a threat to the American principle of religious tolerance. On the contrary, they are prepared to tolerate Mormons in their society, just as they are prepared to tolerate atheists and Jews, Muslims and Hindus. No evangelical has said, "Romney should not be permitted to run for the Presidency because he is a Mormon." None has moved to have a constitutional amendment forbidding the election of a Mormon to the Presidency. That obviously would constitute religious intolerance, and Romney would have every right to wax indignant about it. But he has absolutely no grounds for raising the cry of religious intolerance simply because some evangelicals don't want to see a Mormon as President and are unwilling to support him. I have no trouble myself tolerating Satan-worshippers in America, but I would not be inclined to vote for one as President: Does that make me bigot? The question of who we prefer to lead us has nothing to do with the question of who we are willing to tolerate, and it did Romney no credit to conflate these two quite distinct questions. There is nothing wrong with evangelicals wishing to see one of their own in the White House, or with atheists wishing to see one of theirs in the same position.
Romney's best approach might have been to say nothing at all. Certainly that would have been preferable to trying to turn his candidacy into an issue of religious tolerance. Better still, he might have said frankly: "My religion is different and, yes, even a trifle odd. But it has not kept Mormons from dying for their country, or paying their taxes, or educating their kids, or making decent communities in which to live."
You said — “He is trying to make it seem that our opposition to him is about his mormonism.”
Well, I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t vote for any member of any cult group, no matter who they are or what the cult group.
It’s a “process of elimination” and that’s the first item on the agenda for me, in order to eliminate candidates. That’s first, and then after that, then I’ll get into their record. For me, Romney didn’t get past the religious cult part...
Regards,
Star Traveler
You were saying — “Think about it: if the issue of the strangeness in Mormonism were not a significant issue, why would Romney make a speech about religion trying to prevent open opposition on the grounds of his religion?”
You know, the “strangeness part” if seen from the “outside” — from someone who doesn’t believe in any religion at all, is probably just as strange from one religion to another. I mean, Christianity seems “not strange”, only because it’s so ingrained into our society. And also, because it has a lot of proof and evidence backing up the Bible as the Word of God. So, we (as Christians) have become accustomed to what others would consider strange. We have seen the proofs and know it is the truth.
Thus, I don’t think of it in terms of “strange” or not. For me, it’s a matter of truth or not. The Bible and the doctrines and teachings of Christianity have the evidences and proofs over the centuries and it has not been proven to be wrong in many things it has spoken about that can be tested and proven.
And talking about Mormonism, it has way too many things that are simply wrong. Take the history of the Americas, for example. There are civilizations spoken about that have absolutely no existence at all in history or any artifacts or cities or anything like that. They are totally missing.
And with Mormonism, it goes against the more verifiable Bible account of things.
So, it’s not a “strangeness” issue with me (in regards to Mormonism), because Christianity can have some fairly strange things in it, too. It’s a “truthfulness” issue and the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon church fail miserably in that regard. The teachings and doctrines of the Mormon church are miserably false.
Why am I going to vote for a guy for President who believes in a cult religion that shows no evidences of the civilizations that it says existed in the Americas and thus — shows that he “falls for false information” like is being taught by the Mormon Church. That’s not the kind of President of the United States that I want — one that cannot sort out *truth* from error...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Regards,
Star Traveler
Ol' Joe didn't say that; but that it wasn't TRUE.
But you, as a good scholar, knew that.
Now then; just which PART of it makes it UNtrue?
Man!
I miss those C vs E threads!
Dang!
Who’d I offend with my post below this one?? #628
Dang!
If I knew which was which, I could work on correcting my errors.
Please be more specific when mentioning them; ok??
HA HA ha!
What percentage of LDS organization members meet those requirements??
““I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ””
If this quote can be attributed to J Smith true then my fears about mormonism have been substantiated.
You can watch it restonu. He comes on at minute 50. Just bring thr curser to that point.
Ok then, go right ahead.
I used to go to this farmer's market by my house, because people told me that farmer's market food is better than grocery store food, I bought into the hype. Until the "Product of Peru" bands showed up on the vegetables, odd we didn't even notice until then they tasted like plain old grocery vegetables. Now I save myself a trip and buy everything at Albertson's.
Oh!
It was Enchilada that posted #628; not me!
Whoo!
I thought I had been bad!
What did Enchilada post that got it pulled??
Sorry; it's not SILLY at all.
The LDS organization has SECRETS it keeps from those considered unworthy.
Even the worthy ones are commanded to keep secret the things they have been told.
The organization tries to varnish that fact over by calling the secret things SACRED.
I'm sorry if this makes unworthy outsiders suspect your religion just a wee bit; but Hey!; that's how us humans tick!
ARRGGHH!!!!
I got the NUMBER!!
Beware, Dudes!
If it is NOT found in our OFFICIAL SCRIPTURES; then we can dismiss it with a wave of the hand.
--MormonDude(My man surely wouldn't say something like that! [where it could be recorded.] )
I've started a Ravi Zacharias file of his presentations (by links, I don't have storage space for the videos). As Obi Wan would say, 'the force is strong with that one' ... it is exquisite joy to hear a man filled with the Holy Spirit. Thnak you again
I didn’t realize it had been pulled.
If it was the one directed to me, and I think it was, then I believe she did it as a courtesy to me because of a problem in the post..
I was so caught up in El Shaddai and Emmanuel, singing out loud with the video, my cats thought something was about to happen in here!... And it was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.